On Jul 11, 2011, at 8:13 AM, William Herrin wrote:
Today's RFC candidates are required to call out IANA considerations and security considerations in special sections. They do so because each of these areas has landmines that the majority of working groups are ill equipped to consider on their own.
There should be an operations callout as well -- a section where proposed operations defaults (as well as statics for which a solid case can be made for an operations tunable) are extracted from the thick of it and offered for operator scrutiny prior to publication of the RFC.
Do you find this adjustment objectionable? Do you have other fresh ideas to float? Something better than the tired refrain about operators not showing up?
The operations area has a directorate. It reviews basically every draft in front of the IESG. I'm on it. Am I not an operator? Do I think that adding yet another required section to an internet draft is going to increase it's quality? No I do not.
'Cause I have to tell you: Several years ago I picked a working group and I showed up. And I faced and lost the argument against the persistent certainty on the workability of ridiculous deployment scenarios by folks who never managed any system larger than a software development lab. And I stopped participating in the group about a year ago as the core of participants who hadn't given up wandered off into la la land.
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004